About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
covergirl. >>> next week the u.s. supreme court will hear challenges to appropriatition 8 and doma. arguably the two most for cases involving gay rights ever to go before the high court. already right now as i speak to you, a line of people looking to attend the arguments. began form three day ace go. first case on tuesday will be collingsworth v. perry. proposition 8. at issue is whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits california from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. in 2010, u.s. district court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. then a little over a year ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld that decision. president obama's justice department submitted an amicus brief last month urging the court to overturn prop 8 saying the president and attorney general have determined the classification based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny for equal protection. on wednesday, the court will hear united states v. windsor, challenge of the defense of marriage act. whether section 3 of doma, defines marriages be
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
at that point because they're hearing arguments on the defense of marriage act. doma denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. and then friday, all right, car enthusiasts get to new york. the new york auto show kicks off. the nine-day event features about 1,000 vehicles and will, of course, show off hot new cars and trucks from around the world and all the technology that goes in them. >>> we told you about the defensive marriage act up for debate on wednesday. thousands of couples across the country affected by the supreme court decision and cnn joe johns spoke to one of those couples. joe? >> christi, the defensive marriage act has been the law of the land since 1996. though its title may sound harmless enough, gay and lesbian americans all over the country claim the law has caused enormous damage, claiming that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. jamel thomas and corinne williams were together four years before they got married last october. don't let the wedding dresses fool you. their lives are not all saturn and pearls. >> i am a
. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from bene
- or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> secretary of state john kerry says he's made it clear to iraq that it shouldn't allow iran to use its airspace to ship weapons and fighters to syria. u-s officials believe shipments on iranian overflights are transporting weapons and fighters to the embattled syrian government. kerry says iraq's behavior in allowing use of the airspace raises questions about the country's reliability as a partner. >> a mall in los angeles is open again after more than a thousand wor
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
and the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern, and you can hear the as soon asnts on -- the audio is released and these will be air at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on tuesday, a justice department official told a house judiciary subcommittee that the government is open to the idea of requiring warrants for obtaining electronic communications during criminal investigations but added that there are situations where the warrant should not be required. the hearing was looking at revisions for the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the opening statement. the electronics privacy at this complicated and outdated, and largely unconstitutional. it made sense when it was drafted but the role of the internet and electronics communication in the daily lives is vastly different than it was during the reagan administration ended needed reforms to better protect privacy, to allow the growth of electronic c
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
clinton recently wanting the supreme court to overterm o dd doma and was that a cat take list for hillary clinton? >> i think we can probably guess pretty well that people's family influences were there on this issue. hillary clinton said it herself in the clip you played. and certainly president obama was moved as he said by his daughters and his wife. so i would imagine that the former president and chelsea had an influence on where the secretary ended up, as well. >> brian, last question. just you and me and a couple people watching. are there any more big named announcements in the works for you? >> well, we've seen seen a lot of really exciting developments on the issue of marriage. >> folks like -- >> you know, you never know who the next person will be. but i'm sure we'll be hearing from more people in the coming days and weeks. >> i tried. brian, thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> new york mayor michael bloomberg is proposing yet another health initiative. this one would require stores to keep tobacco products hidden in cabinets behind curtains, under the counter. this idea com
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12